Home > Sex Radicals > Report: APA wants to destigmatize pedophilia

Report: APA wants to destigmatize pedophilia

August 19th, 2011

The last part here cracks me up: The APA only considers it a mental disorder if they’re distressed by their actions or behavior. “I’m distressed; therefore, I have a mental disorder. Nah, I’m okay with it now. No mental disorder.” I’m definitely starting to question the APA’s  discernment.

by Charlie Butts

Liberty Counsel Action‘s Matt Barber attended the conference and says he felt he was on a different planet, as the presenting professionals aimed to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). That would mean that pedophilia would no longer be considered a mental disorder.

“The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the pedophile,” Barber accounts. There was “very little concern for the children who are the victims of these individuals when they are raped, who these individuals lust after,” he adds.

And he says the experts’ discussions were focused on “destigmatizing pedophilia … removing the stigma, and [getting] the public to stop demonizing pedophiles.”

But the attorney reports that the APA is already moving toward declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder “by saying that a pedophile is only a pedophile in their latest DSM … if they are distressed by their attractions or behaviors.”

Keep reading.

Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: Sex Radicals Tags:
  1. August 19th, 2011 at 11:26 | #1

    Pedophilia is just another sexual orientation. Once you say one perverse sexual orientation (homosexuality) is okay, you can’t logically deny any other sexual perversion as being okay.

  2. John Noe
    August 19th, 2011 at 16:10 | #2

    Yes Glen very sad and true the slippery slope. In fact the pedophiles can simply use all of the reasons given in the pro SSM posts on these blogs and have it simply linked to their “sexual orientation”.

  3. Sean
    August 19th, 2011 at 17:12 | #3

    Why would being sexually attracted to children be a mental disorder? What’s next, being attracted to redheads? You’re attracted to what you’re attracted to; why judge it?

  4. August 20th, 2011 at 07:25 | #4

    @Sean I suppose you have no problem then with people being sexually attracted to animals?

  5. Deb
    August 20th, 2011 at 11:24 | #5

    Sean :
    Why would being sexually attracted to children be a mental disorder? What’s next, being attracted to redheads? You’re attracted to what you’re attracted to; why judge it?

    Sean, I’m going to quote you: “Not near my child, you don’t!”

  6. Sean
    August 21st, 2011 at 05:46 | #6

    “I suppose you have no problem then with people being sexually attracted to animals?”

    No, I have no problem with people being attracted to animals, or ceiling fans, or door knobs. I try not to judge things that people have no control over.

  7. Anne
    August 22nd, 2011 at 06:42 | #7

    @Sean
    ““I suppose you have no problem then with people being sexually attracted to animals?”

    No, I have no problem with people being attracted to animals, or ceiling fans, or door knobs. I try not to judge things that people have no control over.”

    Great! Anything goes!! So my “lack of contol” over my opposition to homosexual behaviour is not an issue for you Sean? Please notify the media and your government representatives asap.

  8. August 22nd, 2011 at 07:42 | #8

    @Sean And since when do people have no control over when they have sex (other than rape)?

  9. nerdygirl
    August 22nd, 2011 at 10:23 | #9

    Everyone here is overlooking the importance of consent. A child cannot consent, therefore any sexual act with a child would still be rape legally. Removing pedophilia as a mental disorder would actually allow for harsher sentences against those who sexually assault children, as they would no longer have an insanity defense.

    I don’t doubt that actual pedophiles (sadly, the majority of childhood abuse is not committed by pedophiles, but thats another discussion.) have no control over what they are attracted too, however, unlike a gay person, they have no way to actually relieve that tension without harming a child. There’s a rather big difference between consensual sex with an adult of the same gender then non-consensual sex with a child. From what little I understand of the actual discussion, it seems that therapeutic services would still be available. I do not agree with changing the status, but I find it frightening how similar supporters of this blog find pedophilia/child molestation to homosexuality. As a victim of child molestation, may I remind you that there is no comparison, and quite honestly it might do some of you well to feel a bit of shame in trying to make that comparison and make light of what molestation victims go through.

  10. Anne
    August 22nd, 2011 at 13:33 | #10

    @nerdygirl
    “Everyone here is overlooking the importance of consent. A child cannot consent, therefore any sexual act with a child would still be rape legally.”

    People are not overlooking the importance of consent. In fact, that is the very essence of the argument. I have asked several times, and you and Rob have not answered the questions which make this a gray area. Sean has answered them, but I don’t think you want his answers for your cause as they are quite radical.

    You have not identified what you refer to as “a child”.

    You also haven’t identified SPECIFICALLY what acts are being consented to.

    The reason these questions are significant is that there are many arguments here in support of “gay marriage” and in support of sex-education of children and exposing children to “homosexual family environments” in which these concepts are assumed and not stated. When the terms are actually defined, the argument that these activities are separate from sexual indoctrination of children, which is the equivalent of pedophelia, fall flat.

    What distinguishes a 12 or 14 year old from being mature enough to “identify their sexual identity” but not mature enough to decide to sleep with an adult?

    The answers matter. Most people who support the homosexual lifestyle won’t answer the questions because the answers will limit the arguments they use to establish their position. You can’t have it both ways. Children can’t be old enough to choose a homosexual lifestyle but limited in all other sexual decisions.

    That’s why the answer is that sex is reserved for married adults. First comes marriage. Then comes sex. Which is another obvious reason why “homosexual marriage” is irrational. It puts the sex before the union.

    Vague use of the terms “child”, “consent” and “sexual activity” leave your empassioned defense of children unsubstantiated.

  11. August 22nd, 2011 at 14:44 | #11

    @nerdygirl Who says a child cannot consent? Children consent to sex all the time – the question is whether or not they understand what they consent to. However, in many countries children as young as 12 are legally able to consent to sex. So who are you to say a child cannot consent to sex? Do you know what is in their mind, what they can or cannot understand? After all, each child develops at individual rates, including emotional and intellectual, let alone physical.

    What is your standard of morality which says same-sex behavior is okay but adult-child sex is not okay if a 6-year-old consents and enjoys what is happening?

    And homophiles can indeed relieve themselves of their urges without having sex with another person – it’s called masturbation. However, sexual urges NEVER have to be satisfied – people don’t die from not having sex. And that is part of the problem with the homosexual agenda. Even if a person did have an unwanted orientation towards a member of the same sex, he NEVER has to act on it! Yet homosexualists act as if it must be satisfied, that it is unreasonable to demand abstinence. Of course it isn’t unreasonable to demand abstinence from a pedophile.

    The comparison is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are considered sexual orientations. If you say that one perverse sexual orientation is okay, then you have no logical or objective moral basis to deny any other.

  12. Sean
    August 22nd, 2011 at 15:37 | #12

    “Great! Anything goes!! So my “lack of contol” over my opposition to homosexual behaviour is not an issue for you Sean? Please notify the media and your government representatives asap.”

    Anne, your feelings are what they are. But as a human being supposedly capable of reason, you can challenge your feelings, especially if they lead to actions. You don’t like gay people and your impulse evidently is to stop them from having the same rights you have, such as the right to get married. But as a thinking human being, you can challenge this impulse, as many people have: “Ok, I don’t like homosexuality, it’s not for me; but maybe that’s what someone else needs, to be whole. Why should I have a right that others don’t?” etc.

    You don’t have to be held hostage by your impulses. Or some religious indoctrination you got as a child and was powerless to fight back against. You can actually use your brain and think what’s the right thing to do.

    Denying gay couples the right to marry solves nothing. And it creates havoc for their children.

  13. nerdygirl
    August 22nd, 2011 at 17:00 | #13

    @Anne
    “Child” varies in definition state to state. So do consent laws. Generally speaking, a child is under the age of 15. Many states have their age of consent laws around 14-16, with statutes that limit consent for parties more then 4 years older, some do not.

    The acts would vary case to case and individual to individual obviously, but usually some from of sex.

    ” in which these concepts are assumed and not stated. When the terms are actually defined, the argument that these activities are separate from sexual indoctrination of children, which is the equivalent of pedophelia, fall flat.”

    ………….WUT.
    How is stating that Tommy has two daddies indoctrinating him to sex? It’s not like we need to go and Tommy’s two daddies put their *blankity* *blank* in each others *Blank* and *blankity Blank blank* all night long.
    http://www.metatube.com/en/videos/66213/Kid-s-Reaction-To-A-Gay-Couple/
    It’s not like we tell kids what mommy and daddy do in graphic detail.

    “What distinguishes a 12 or 14 year old from being mature enough to “identify their sexual identity” but not mature enough to decide to sleep with an adult?”

    Well, I’d say identifying your sexual identity is a part of growing up. Some people get it right the first time, some take a little longer, some realize their first guess was wrong. 12-14 year olds are still developing mentally (technically ones not fully an adult mentally till 25) So their decision making and ability to see consequences is still developing. While they may feel they are adults they are not, hence not being able to give legal consent. Also, the adult may be coercing them, there is a large gap between an adult and a 12 year old, the power imbalance is large.

    “Which is another obvious reason why “homosexual marriage” is irrational. It puts the sex before the union.”

    Not common, but certainly doable (at least now. How is a gay person supposed to wait until marriage if they can’t legally wed their loved one). I remember reading about a gay couple who tried to live by the bible, they didn’t have sex. Now then, since marriage is an option, you may find an increase (in time, not immediately) of gay people preaching abstinence before marriage.

    “Vague use of the terms “child”, “consent” and “sexual activity” leave your empassioned defense of children unsubstantiated.”

    I’m sorry, I didn’t realize two gay adults were so similar to a 10 year old and a 40 year old in your mind.

  14. nerdygirl
    August 22nd, 2011 at 17:09 | #14

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    “What is your standard of morality which says same-sex behavior is okay but adult-child sex is not okay if a 6-year-old consents and enjoys what is happening?”

    You are officially creepy for that. Good job.

    You said yourself that a child ” Children consent to sex all the time – the question is whether or not they understand what they consent to.” And that is the same to you as two adults who do understand what they are consenting to
    (By the by, if one doesn’t actually understand what they’re getting into, it’s not exactly consensual is it?)

    “If you say that one perverse sexual orientation is okay, then you have no logical or objective moral basis to deny any other.”

    You really believe that two gay adults having sex is the same as an adult raping a child? I feel sorry for you.

  15. Anne
    August 22nd, 2011 at 19:14 | #15

    @Sean

    “You don’t like gay people”

    You made that up. Like you always do. I don’t like homosexual activity being taught to my children as a moral right. And I don’t like the negative impact the homosexual agenda has on the rights of children.

    “Denying gay couples the right to marry solves nothing. And it creates havoc for their children.”

    Other people’s children.

    “Or some religious indoctrination you got as a child and was powerless to fight back against.”

    This comment reveals just how little you know about so much.

    “You can actually use your brain and think what’s the right thing to do.”

    Please Sean, try it.

  16. Anne
    August 23rd, 2011 at 05:23 | #16

    @nerdygirl

    Thank you for another vague answer to a very specific question.

    Your post is an essay response to a short answer question.

  17. Anne
    August 23rd, 2011 at 05:24 | #17

    @nerdygirl
    “How is stating that Tommy has two daddies indoctrinating him to sex?”

    Because Tommy doesn’t have two daddies. Tommy has a daddy and the man his daddy has sex with.

  18. Anne
    August 23rd, 2011 at 06:54 | #18

    @nerdygirl
    “How is a gay person supposed to wait until marriage if they can’t legally wed their loved one.”

    They aren’t supposed to get married at all. Heterosexual intercourse is the consummation of marriage. First the vow, then the consummation/fulfillment/perfection of the vow. Full and unreserved gift of yourself (including your fertility) to your spouse.

    “I’m sorry, I didn’t realize two gay adults were so similar to a 10 year old and a 40 year old in your mind.”

    Well now you know. Deviant sex is deviant sex. Homosexual sex is as deviant as pedophelia. They are both self oriented, without purpose, opposed to the true essence of marriage and the natrure of sexuality and harmful to children.

  19. August 23rd, 2011 at 09:58 | #19

    @nerdygirl Oh, so I am creepy for seeking your standard of morality? Read Kinsey and Pomeroy – they had no problem with adult-child sex except for people who made an issue out of it.

    Who are you to say that a child doesn’t understand sex, especially when they’ve been programed in public school from kindergarten to see it as nothing but a form of entertainment?

    I didn’t say anything about rape. You don’t like the idea of a child consenting to sex so you call it rape. What right do you have to force your beliefs onto a child, claiming they can’t consent?

    And, yes, two homophiles abusing the natural use of human sexuality is indeed no different than adult-child sex or human/animal sex. It is all an abuse of human sexuality and all claimed to be orientations. You can’t allow one logically without allowing the others.

  20. Ken
    August 23rd, 2011 at 15:42 | #20

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    What a ridiculous statement. First off, the Supreme Court has already that homosexuality is “ok” in Lawrence v. Texas – pedophilia is still legal. We’re talking about consenting adults. Children can’t consent. It’s like saying that once you allow a men to marry adult females, you must allow them to marry female children.

  21. nerdygirl
    August 23rd, 2011 at 20:31 | #21

    Well. Let it be said that Supporters of the Ruth Institute find homosexuality just as bad as CHILD RAPE. Two adults having gay sex is the same as an adult raping a child. Such bastions of morality you all are.

    Anne: Is my step-father my father, or just the man my mom has sex with? I’m terribly sorry I wasn’t specific enough for you, and I’m sorry I took the time to go into detail with my position, as you apparently didn’t care. You also might want to learn how to respond within one post.

    Glenn. Do me a favor and don’t go near any playgrounds. Suddenly, I see why you adoption wasn’t an option for you, I imagine saying believing a child can consent to sex would do that, in addition to put you on various FBI watch lists. If you can’t seem to understand why I find you creepy, try asking random people on the street if children can consent to sex, or that gay sex is just like pedophilia. Every christian I know would disagree with your stance there. The fact that you can’t logically see the difference between two adults consenting and a child “consenting” with an adult, speaks volumes.

  22. Anne
    August 25th, 2011 at 07:39 | #22

    @nerdygirl
    “Well. Let it be said that Supporters of the Ruth Institute find homosexuality just as bad as CHILD RAPE.”

    They both leave children victims. It’s like comparing poverty driven robbery to “white collar” theft. They’re both wrong and create victims. One may be more violent than the other and be more directly and personally victimizing, but the lack of violence doesn’t justify or neutralize what victimization does still occur.

    “Anne: Is my step-father my father, or just the man my mom has sex with? I’m terribly sorry I wasn’t specific enough for you, and I’m sorry I took the time to go into detail with my position, as you apparently didn’t care.”

    I have addressed several of your points in other posts (not necessarily on this thread). If you are actually interested in my perspecive on divorced families, perhaps you could read my most recent response to Emma on “Another Word on Terminolgy”.

    As for your discussion about the limited maturity level of teenagers, I agree totally. The question I posed was what do we do with it. You seem to agree that adolescents don’t have the maturity level of adults but appear to want to reserve them the right to sexually experiment anyway, while limiting the sexual experimentation to within their adolescent circle. I contended that the immaturity of adolecents means that their sexual activity should be severely limited and directed by responsible adults: Their parents specifically, not the government or the It Gets Better Campain. The reason I didn’t respond to your post is that I already stated this and you didn’t respond to it.

    “You also might want to learn how to respond within one post.”

    How charming of you to presume that I don’t respond in single posts because I haven’t “learned” how to. That’s not really the reason though. There are actually a few reasons I don’t respond all in one post, none of which are intended to upset you:

    Sometimes I feel different concepts should be addressed separately.

    Usually, the reason I post numerous times is because, as urgent as this cause is to me, it is hardly all I do in a day. You may have seen me mention that I am married and have seven children. I also attend daily Mass and work two jobs (the equivalent of full time). So, I post what I can when I can. As you know, the site doesn’t update instantaneously, nor does it give the opportunity to edit posts which have been entered but not updated. So I may post several comments at different times of the day which all get updated at the same time.

    nerdygirl, life is tough enough without worrying yourself about the little things.

  23. August 25th, 2011 at 09:24 | #23

    @Ken Children as young as 12 can consent in many countries. It’s just a matter of time before that is allowed in the USA. But, from a moral standpoint, if you have no foundational, objective standard of morality besides your own opinion, then who says a child must consent? Kinsey, Pomeroy and Calderone didn’t think it was necessary – just teach them it feels good and they will consent every time.

    What we are saying is that once you have decided one sexual perversion is moral and right, how can you logically deny any other perversion? What is your standard?

  24. August 25th, 2011 at 09:28 | #24

    @nerdygirl You find it “creepy” that I am applying your morality? My morality is based on God’s plan for human sexuality, so that means sex is between husband and wife and only that.

    Your morality says there is no objective moral standard but your own opinion. Kinsey, Pomeroy, Calderone and others say a child can benefit by adult-child sexual relations. These people say any sexual behavior is okay. And this is the logical end of your sexual morality. You cannot demand a child consent by your morality. Just saying a child has to consent is only your opinion, so why can’t other people have a different opinion which is just as valid?

    Sexual perversion is sexual perversion. If you justify one, you cannot logically deny another.

  25. Anne
    August 25th, 2011 at 11:24 | #25

    @nerdygirl
    “Anne: Is my step-father my father, or just the man my mom has sex with?”

    One more reason I don’t respond all in one post is because some questions require a little extra consideration and sensitivity than others. This is a question that refers to your personal situation. I would always try (if not often succeed) to treat you, and the others here, with the personal dignity you deserve when it comes to the personal situations in your life.

    I don’t know you or your mother or step-father. It seems you have a beautiful loving bond with your step-father. Strong enough to refer to him as your father. That is a tremendous blessing.

    What I understand from your previous posts is that your parents were divorced when your step-father came into your life. He chose to love you where you were. He didn’t create a void in your life in order to fill it. Nor did he use you to to fill a void of his own making (which is what homosexual couples do when they create children they are sterile to produce).

    Your step-father did not displace your father in order to love you. A true parent makes the child the object of their love. Not the fulfillment of their desire. It seems to me your step-father is much more than the man your mother sleeps with.

  26. Betsy
    August 25th, 2011 at 14:15 | #26

    @nerdygirl
    Nerdygirl, I want to point out that everyone on this blog is an individual, often with wildly different ideas from each other, even others on “their side.” Please don’t make any blanket statements about any group of people who write on here. I think often we partially agree with people on “the other side” as well as sometimes disagreeing with people on “our own side.”

    [But for the record, you saying "Well. Let it be said that Supporters of the Ruth Institute find homosexuality just as bad as CHILD RAPE. Two adults having gay sex is the same as an adult raping a child. Such bastions of morality you all are." is an utter crap statement. I'm just going to assume you don't really mean that.]

    Thanks.

  27. Sean
    August 25th, 2011 at 16:48 | #27

    @Anne

    “You made that up. Like you always do. I don’t like homosexual activity being taught to my children as a moral right. And I don’t like the negative impact the homosexual agenda has on the rights of children.”

    I don’t believe that you don’t dislike gay people. I can’t believe that you support a public policy that causes them so much harm, yet have nothing personal against them. It would be rather remarkable, actually. Your use of the loaded phrase “homosexual agenda” betrays your sentiments. There is nothing morally wrong with being gay and having consensual gay sex with another adult. Like pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce, all of which are legal, you can teach your children that you oppose them despite their legality.

    The rights of children are not negatively affected when same-sex marriage is legal. Same-sex parenting is legal in all 50 states. That’s unlikely to change.

    Children do, however, get all sorts of positive benefits when their same-sex parents can marry, such as, say, access to company-sponsored health care.

    “Other people’s children.”

    They’re not other people’s children if those other people don’t want them! Nobody is kidnapping anyone’s children, that I know of, in the world of legal same-sex marriage!

    “Please Sean, try it.”

    You first!

  28. Sean
    August 25th, 2011 at 16:51 | #28

    “Because Tommy doesn’t have two daddies. Tommy has a daddy and the man his daddy has sex with.”

    Let’s ask Tommy what he has, shall we? It would appear that the children of same-sex parents seem to consider both their parents as parents, not as a parent and his parent’s lover. That differs from the children of a parent and a step-parent, who often DO consider themselves stuck with a parent and a parent’s lover.

  29. nerdygirl
    August 25th, 2011 at 19:13 | #29

    @Betsy
    I meant it more in the I-can’t-believe-Glenn’s-trying-to-argue-children-can-consent-to-sex way. I see no logical connection between two adults having “immoral” sex and an adult raping a child. I’d hope there’d have been some agreement with me there.

    @Anne
    I’m sorry. This is a bit of a touchy subject overall for me, and honestly, I can not comprehend the stance behind equating homosexuality as analogous to pedophillia. I can sorta see the religious immorality link, but the two are not the same. I think there are plenty of reasons to be against declassifying pedophilia as a mental illness without making it about how gays are ruining the world.

    And Glenn, you’re not applying my morality, you’re implying my morality. There’s a difference.

  30. Anne
    August 26th, 2011 at 04:24 | #30

    @nerdygirl

    “I can not comprehend the stance behind equating homosexuality as analogous to pedophillia. I can sorta see the religious immorality link, but the two are not the same.”

    Why do you refer to the immorality as religious? Morality is morality whether a religion adopts it or not. Morality is what our government is supposed to be based on.

    You don’t have to see homosexuality and pedophilia as “the same” to realize that they are both immoral and claim victims using the same rational.

  31. Anne
    August 26th, 2011 at 05:09 | #31

    @Sean

    “They’re not other people’s children if those other people don’t want them!”

    If those other people don’t want “them”, they should not be making “them”. THEY are human beings, not inanimate objects to be created for the purpose of being “given” away.

    “Let’s ask Tommy what he has, shall we? It would appear that the children of same-sex parents seem to consider both their parents as parents, not as a parent and his parent’s lover.”

    Do you think Tommy might fall into the scenerio you claim exists?:

    “…….some………indoctrination you got as a child and was powerless to fight back against.”

    Also, didn’t we agree children weren’t the best source for deciding sexual relationships?

    “That differs from the children of a parent and a step-parent, who often DO consider themselves stuck with a parent and a parent’s lover.”

    I’m sure they often are stuck. What people sometimes do and shouldn’t in various situations is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not a specific action (homosexual couples creating parentless children in a laboratory for their own gratification) is selfish.

    “I don’t believe that you don’t dislike gay people. I can’t believe that you support a public policy that causes them so much harm, yet have nothing personal against them.”

    I am not defined by what or whom you think I like and don’t like. Feel free to disagree with my perspective on a particular subject, but don’t presume to tell me what I think and feel.

    “Your use of the loaded phrase “homosexual agenda” betrays your sentiments.”

    I use the phrase “homosexual agenda” to refer to the homosexual comminity’s efforts to establish homosexuality as a social norm, which they are in fact endeavouring to do.

    What does your use of the term “loaded” betray?

  32. nerdygirl
    August 26th, 2011 at 20:18 | #32

    @Anne
    “Why do you refer to the immorality as religious? Morality is morality whether a religion adopts it or not. Morality is what our government is supposed to be based on.”

    Not necessarily. Morality isn’t set in stone. Look at fashion, showing ankle in public used to be scandalous and immoral. Different cultures and different religions have different sets of moral conduct. There are similarities, but there are gray areas as well, and homosexuality is a gray area for many people.
    Our government is based on law. The law is just. What is moral and just often overlaps, but not always.
    As far as homosexuality “claiming victims”, that would be both debatable, and pretty insulting once again to victims of child molestation/assault.

  33. Anne
    August 27th, 2011 at 04:40 | #33

    @nerdygirl

    “Not necessarily. Morality isn’t set in stone.”

    Of course moraility isn’t set in stone. And every moral concept isn’t legislated. And every country doesn’t base their government in morality. But here in America, our legal system is based on justice and what is “right” for the people, as determined by those same people who are in fact, the government.

    “As far as homosexuality “claiming victims”, that would be both debatable, and pretty insulting once again to victims of child molestation/assault.”

    I have stated this before nerdygirl, there are more than one degree of victimization. I don’t think an adult rape victim would refuse to acknowledge that the people swindled in a financial ponzie scheme are not victims. When people indulge themselves at other people’s expense, they victimize them. Some forms of victimization are quite blatant and brutal. Others are more subtle. Victimization doesn’t need to be intentional to be present.

    Using the victimis of child molestation to dramatize and draw sympathy to your postition, is further victimization of those children as well as the victims of the homosexual agenda: children forced into confusion because of other people’s indulgence of their sexual desires.

    The fact that I believe children are victimized by the homosexual agenda doesn’t make me any less sympathetic to victims of pedophilia. For you to use the implication in order to diminish my postition and elevate your own, may be effective, but it is unfair and yet another form of victimization.

  34. Sean
    August 27th, 2011 at 07:14 | #34

    “If those other people don’t want “them”, they should not be making “them”.”

    Well, that is, rightly or wrongly, the prerogative of adults, many of whom create babies they don’t want. What they wanted was to have sex, but got a little something extra.

    “THEY are human beings, not inanimate objects to be created for the purpose of being “given” away.”

    Again, adults have the right to create a baby and give it away if they want. And any adult is allowed to create a baby with another person for the purpose of raising that baby with someone else, or alone. It all depends on who consents to what role.

    “Do you think Tommy might fall into the scenerio you claim exists…”

    It’s possible that Tommy might not really want to have two moms or two dads, but if it’s all he knows, he’s probably perfectly happy with it, if they love him and treat him well. He might not want a white mom and a black dad, either, but oh well, that’s legal, too. He might not want a dad and a step-mother, but again, legal and very common.

    I think too many homophobic people want to speak for other peoples’ children, and assume that those children feel as they do about gay parents, which is unlikely.

    “didn’t we agree children weren’t the best source for deciding sexual relationships?”

    I don’t recall but children are never suitable partners for sexual relationships. What’s your point?

    “homosexual couples creating parentless children in a laboratory for their own gratification”

    Parentless? If a gay couple wants to raise a child, that child will have parents. You don’t have to be the biological parents of a child to be a parent. And yes, wanting to raise a child is a selfish act, but that’s true for straight couples and gay couples.

    “I am not defined by what or whom you think I like and don’t like.”

    I didn’t say you are. I said I don’t believe that someone who is so adamantly against same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting can be free of personal prejudices against gay people. You wouldn’t be this motivated to blog about it, and your lack of concern for non-gay people “abusing” marriage or children suggests your motivations are gay-centered, not marriage-centered or children-centered.

    “I use the phrase “homosexual agenda” to refer to the homosexual comminity’s efforts to establish homosexuality as a social norm, which they are in fact endeavouring to do.”

    Well, who doesn’t want to feel normal, especially when they are? What tax-paying citizens should accept his government denying him rights that government gives to others? However, you should be aware that it is by far straight people who want to normalize being gay. Be careful when you use the phrase “homosexual agenda” because that has become code for “a small and radical minority who want to harm society for their selfish ends.” The anti-gay crowd is masterful at rhetoric, I’ll give them that, as well as making heart-rending claims that sound important, but that have no relationship to same-sex marriage.

    The fact is, most Americans now believe that gay and lesbian Americans deserve the same rights as straight Americans. Not a small minority.

  35. August 27th, 2011 at 10:35 | #35

    @nerdygirl Am I really implying your morality? Do you or do you not find homosexuality to be moral?

  36. nerdygirl
    August 27th, 2011 at 17:12 | #36

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    I find it neutral. Just as I find heterosexuality. Neither are inherently moral or immoral, it’s ones conduct that would be moral or immoral. However, you have said I find it moral, and thus I must find pedophillia normal as well, because to you they are both immoral. You are trying to draw a parallel between the consent of two adults and the (not legal) “consent” of a child and adult.

  37. Anne
    August 29th, 2011 at 07:21 | #37

    @Sean
    ““If those other people don’t want “them”, they should not be making “them”.”

    Well, that is, rightly or wrongly, the prerogative of adults, many of whom create babies they don’t want. ”

    Wrongly.
    Unintended pregnancy is not the same as premeditated and artificially created. Intent does matter.

    ““THEY are human beings, not inanimate objects to be created for the purpose of being “given” away.”

    Again, adults have the right to create a baby and give it away if they want.”

    Are we robots who can’t use a conscience to decide “rightly from wrongly”, or distinguish what we should from what we want?

    ““Do you think Tommy might fall into the scenerio you claim exists…”

    It’s possible that Tommy might not really want to have two moms or two dads,…… He might not want a dad and a step-mother, but again, legal and very common.”

    And again, not necessarily right just because people are allowed to do it.

    ““didn’t we agree children weren’t the best source for deciding sexual relationships?”

    I don’t recall but children are never suitable partners for sexual relationships. What’s your point?”

    What a completely random response. I know I misquoted Glenn before, and I don’t love to beat the proverbial dead horse, but really Sean, “How many hours are there in a mile?”

    My point of course was that Tommy is not really a reliable source for whether or not his “two dads” represent true parenthood. If a child is raised as a sex slave, they might not know there were anything wrong with it.

    “I said I don’t believe that someone who is so adamantly against same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting can be free of personal prejudices against gay people.”

    What you think doesn’t change what is. I am adamantly opposed to divorce, but I have no personal prejudice against my divorced sister (or any other divorced person). I am adamantly opposed to abortion, but know and love many people who have made that choice. A person can be opposed to a behaviour without having a personal prejudice against people who choose to engage in it. Just because you don’t understand the concept doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    “Well, who doesn’t want to feel normal, especially when they are? What tax-paying citizens should accept his government denying him rights that government gives to others?”

    Convicted felons? Murderous sociopaths? Militant Nazis? Pedophiles? It’s not like they see their own behaviour as abhorent as it is. Naziism became popularly accepted in Germany. It wasn’t considered abhorent until it’s truly victimizing nature was revealed. How do you suppose that happened Sean?

    “The fact is, most Americans now believe that gay and lesbian Americans deserve the same rights as straight Americans. Not a small minority.”

    The fact is, that’s not a fact at all.

  38. August 29th, 2011 at 13:49 | #38

    @Glenn E. Chatfield You find homosexual behavior to be neutral?

    By what standard do you determine if something is moral or immoral? Apparently it is only based on your opinion. If that is so, then what makes your opinion as to what is or is not moral the standard for the world? Who says it is immoral to not give consent for sex? By what standard of measure do you make such judgment?

    Unless there is an objective morality, such as that which says homosexual behavior is wrong, then you have no basis to determine whether ANY behavior is right or wrong other than just your opinion vs someone else’s opinion, and therefore you have no right to judge someone else’s morality to be wrong.

  39. nerdygirl
    August 29th, 2011 at 15:14 | #39

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    Well, I mean, there’s mean people who are gay, and mean people who are straight, some people hurt their same sex partners, some hurt their opposite sex partners. How is heterosexuality inherently moral? One’s orientation isn’t what causes them to hurt (emotionally, physically or sexually) their partner. Being gay doesn’t mean one will be hurt and being straight doesn’t mean one won’t be hurt. Usually morality comes down to whether or not someone else is harmed by another’s actions. Of course, there are different standards for what counts for hurting or harming a person depending on the code or religion one follows (I am christian, I just don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, and I also don’t think *that* one belief should be the defining fact of whether or not others perceive me as being a christian)

    (Oh, and just in case you’re not following, two adults having a sexual relationship does not automatically end in harm, but the child is always hurt in an adult/child sexual relationship.)

    I don’t see why morality that doesn’t condemn homosexuality wouldn’t be objective, other then your own belief in saying so. If one belief is different, does that completely invalidate another’s morality code? Are Christians just stating their opinion and have no right to judge others because they don’t find eating pork to be a sin?

  40. Rob Tisinai
    August 29th, 2011 at 19:37 | #40

    Glenn, you have to get past this notion that your belief in the Bible is more than your subjective opinion. It may be fully correct (or not), but being a Christian involves making a PERSONAL CHOICE to give yourself over to Christ.

    Because it’s a personal choice, it’s subjective. You have a subjective opinion that your morality is objectively true. That makes it no less subjective.

  41. Rob Tisinai
    August 29th, 2011 at 19:41 | #41

    Betsy, are you aware that your source has retracted the statement, “Report: APA wants to destigmatize pedophilia”?

    http://onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1419400

    I trust you will present this retraction as prominently as you presented the error.

  42. Ruth
    August 29th, 2011 at 19:53 | #42

    @nerdygirl
    Heterosexual sexual activity is not inherently moral, but homosexual sexual activity is inherently immoral.
    This is clearly stated in the Bible, both Testaments.
    If you want to live long and prosper, don’t eat pork, but not eating pork will not make you righteous before God, and that is the supreme issue for all of us Christians.

  43. Betsy
    August 29th, 2011 at 20:18 | #43

    Good to know, Rob. Thanks.

  44. August 30th, 2011 at 06:23 | #44

    @nerdygirl If you don’t find homosexual behavior to be immoral, then how can you determine logically that any sexual behavior is immoral. What is your objective standard – where is your objective truth?

    A Christian or Jew has a moral standard based on what God has decreed. We cannot deviate from that and the judgment of every action must be based on that. it is consistent, whereas your morality isn’t consistent, rather it is subjective to the situation. Any sexual activity outside of marriage between one woman and one man is immoral in God’s eyes. But you pick an choose your sexual morality based on your subjective opinion as to what is or is not harmful. Many people disagree with you as to whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults so someone has to be wrong, yet by a morality based on opinion neither can be wrong.

  45. August 30th, 2011 at 06:25 | #45

    @Rob Tisinai GOD is not subjective. He is there whether you want to believe in him or not. God’s law is not subjective; it is the ultimate truth. There is indeed such a thing as objective truth. My agreeing to abide by that objective truth is an objective decision – not a subjective one.

  46. August 30th, 2011 at 06:26 | #46

    @nerdygirl Oh, and by the way, it is not a sin to eat pork. Jesus said all foods were “clean” to eat.

  47. Anne
    August 30th, 2011 at 07:31 | #47

    @Rob Tisinai
    “You have a subjective opinion that your morality is objectively true. That makes it no less subjective.”

    ….than say, your own?

  48. August 30th, 2011 at 15:18 | #48

    That’s right Anne. Glenn’s subjective opinion of morality is no more or less subjective than my own. Exactly.

  49. August 30th, 2011 at 15:19 | #49

    “My agreeing to abide by that objective truth is an objective decision – not a subjective one.”

    You can call your subjective agreement an objective decision, but that doesn’t make it one. It’s still YOUR PERSONAL DECISION, and it’s subjective.

  50. August 30th, 2011 at 15:20 | #50

    Glenn: “A Christian or Jew has a moral standard based on what God has decreed.” Can you provide objective proof or is this your subjective opinion?

  51. August 30th, 2011 at 15:28 | #51

    Glenn, here’s another way of thinking about it: It’s possible that God and God’s law exist as objective truth even as YOUR CONCEPTION of God and God’s law is your subjective opinion. Can you prove that YOUR CONCEPTION of God and God’s law is more than your subjective opinion?

  52. August 30th, 2011 at 16:37 | #52

    @Rob Tisinai My conception is what is in Scripture – so it is not just my opinion.

  53. August 30th, 2011 at 16:38 | #53

    @Rob Tisinai Objective proof is that we follow what the God of the Bible set as the standard.

  54. August 30th, 2011 at 16:39 | #54

    @Rob Tisinai So is is my subjective opinion to decide that 2+2=4?

  55. August 30th, 2011 at 16:40 | #55

    @Rob Tisinai Your opinion of morality is subject to what ever you feel – it is subjective. My opinion of morality is based on a standard, no matter how I feel.

  56. nerdygirl
    August 30th, 2011 at 19:21 | #56

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    Um, well, harm. A child who has sex/raped by an adult is always harmed. Two gay people are not always harmed, two straight people are not always harmed. That doesn’t make all sex moral, or no sex immoral.

    And, no, there are multiple denominations/ways of following God. There is no one objective standard to being a Christian or Jewish, and to say otherwise is naive.

  57. Rob Tisinai
    August 30th, 2011 at 21:04 | #57

    Glenn it’s your opinion that scriptue is the word of god. Can you offer objective proof. You’ve never done so, no matter how many times I’ve asked. Your belief that the Bible is true is still a subjective belief. That’s not to say it’s wrong — merely that it’s subjective.

  58. Rob Tisinai
    August 30th, 2011 at 21:58 | #58

    Glenn: “So is is my subjective opinion to decide that 2+2=4?”

    I have no idea why you ask this, and I don’t know the intricacies of mathematical philosophy, but I can offer this:

    Assuming we speak a common language and have a mutual understanding of “two,” “plus,” “equals,” and “four,” then I can count out two pebbles and put them in an empty cup, count out two more and add them to the cup, and then count how many are there to see if it equals four.

    I can share this experiment and my results with other people. They can test it for themselves. If anyone comes up with a number other than four, we can ask them to reproduce the experiment and see if their contrary result stands.

    If others read of our efforts, they can repeat the test and check for themselves, whether it’s the next day or two thousand years later.

    In this way, we can get a sense of whether “2+2=4″ is just one person’s subjective opinion, or whether it’s a statement that can be tested with results that do not depend on the person conducting the test.

    So I ask you: Can you offer such a test — a clear, repeatable, observable, independent test — for your belief in your personal and subjective conception of God?

    (Again, I’ll stress this: to call your belief subjective is not to ridicule it, denigrate it, deny it, or say that it’s wrong. It’s merely to say that it’s…not objective).

  59. August 31st, 2011 at 08:01 | #59

    @nerdygirl There is indeed one objective God, and one objective moral standard by God that all denominations follow unless they have gone apostate. Those churches which claim homosexual behavior is not a sin are apostate.

    Again, you have just defined harm by your opinion. What standard? Plenty of people with lots of letters after their names say adult-child sex is not harmful (if the child consents, it isn’t rape and they say the child can consent). You claim two people participating in same-sex behavior are not always harmed, yet God says they are. What is your standard? Your standard seems to be if harm is involved, yet what harm is becomes merely your opinion.

  60. August 31st, 2011 at 12:45 | #60

    @Rob Tisinai The proof I’d give you that the Bible is the Word of God would most likely not be accepted. If you care to read the book, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist,” I believe that book provides information beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not enough room on this forum, nor is it appropriate here, to provide all the information. BUT, it is not my subjective opinion of it being the Word of God any more than it is my opinion that 2+2=4.

  61. August 31st, 2011 at 13:40 | #61

    Glenn, I’m quite familiar with Frank Turek. His work is convincing mainly to those who already (subjectively) believe his conclusions are true.

  62. nerdygirl
    August 31st, 2011 at 20:14 | #62

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    Emotional trauma, physical tramua, etc. would count as harm. Children can not consent to sex as they are not fully developed mentally, and lack the ability to think ahead and fully comprehend sex. Not that the bible gets into the specifics of child sex, so I’m not sure where YOUR standard is coming from either.

    Funny how any denomination that doesn’t agree with you is explained away as heretical.

  63. Rob Tisinai
    August 31st, 2011 at 20:58 | #63

    Glenn: “Objective proof is that we follow what the God of the Bible set as the standard.”

    This not English is.

    :) Just joking — God forbid I should be held judged for every sentence I’ve dashed off quickly. But I really don’t know what this means.

  64. Rob Tisinai
    August 31st, 2011 at 20:59 | #64

    And, as if on cue, I wrote a sentence with the words, “I should be held judged…”

  65. September 1st, 2011 at 08:52 | #65

    @Rob Tisinai Yeah, I know, Turek gives the facts and the truth (and he is only the co-author with Norman Geisler) and those are so difficult to take.

  66. September 1st, 2011 at 08:53 | #66

    @nerdygirl You still are just giving your opinion. Who says they have “trauma”? And what standard calls that harm? It’s just your opinion. Yet when we say homosexual behavior is harmful you sluff that off as our opinion.

  67. September 1st, 2011 at 08:58 | #67

    @Rob Tisinai There was nothing grammatically wrong with it. You asked, “Can you prove that YOUR CONCEPTION of God and God’s law is more than your subjective opinion?”

    “Objective proof” is my response that it is “objective proof” rather than subjective opinion.
    “is that we follow what the God of the Bible set as the standard.” My objective proof is that we have a standard to follow and it is what the God of the Bible set as standard.

  68. September 1st, 2011 at 09:00 | #68

    @nerdygirl “Funny how any denomination that doesn’t agree with you is explained away as heretical.”

    Um, no. If a denomination does not agree with what GOD says in the Bible, they are at least apostate and at worst heretical. God says homosexual behavior is a sin, and those churches which deny that disagree with God, making them apostate.

  69. September 1st, 2011 at 10:49 | #69

    Glenn, that is completely, utterly, and totally circular: My beliefs are objectively true because they come from the Bible which I believe is objectively true, and that belief is objectively true because it comes from the Bible, which I believe is objectively true, and this belief is objectively true because it comes from the Bible, which I believe…

  70. nerdygirl
    September 1st, 2011 at 18:08 | #70

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    I find it hilarious that to disprove me, to undermine my position, you are trying to make child rape legitimate. As far as tramua, I’ve read reports, I’ve talked with survivors of child molestation and I am a survivor. I have meet no one, have read reports of no child who was unharmed from the molestation. Unless YOU have proof otherwise, your strawman is water-logged.

    Also, which version of the bible? King James? NIV? What about transmutation, do varying beliefs on that make a denomination apostate? What about all the books the Catholic church threw out? Does that apply to only what God said, or other writers? Are denominations who wear clothes multiple spun fibers apostate? Are churches that don’t preach against crop rotation sending their gullible farmers to hell? You are so full of faith to your own beliefs you look down on the faith of others.

  71. September 2nd, 2011 at 08:45 | #71

    @Rob Tisinai Sort of like your circular argument about atheism being true. No, my argument is not circular – it is based on objective study and the knowledge that God is real and the Bible is true as demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone with an open mind.

  72. September 2nd, 2011 at 08:55 | #72

    @nerdygirl No, I am not trying to make child rape legitimate. My point is that too many “sexologists” say that children can benefit from sex with adults, and that they consent to it because it feels good. Therefore, their opinion as to whether it is moral is just as valid as yours.

    Your diatribe about which Bible demonstrates your lack of knowledge in the area of textual criticism and such. The particular translation doesn’t matter so long as the translation is a true translation vs a cult translation which does not truly translate but instead adds stuff. There are formal translations such as the KJV,NKJV, ESV, NAS, Darby, RSV, et al; there are dynamic translations such as the NLT, CEV, God’s Word, TEV, et al. There are also translations that balance between the two, such as the NIV, NET and the HCSB. But all are translations of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and all agree with the essential translations. I have no idea what “transmutation” is.

    As far as your statements about clothing and crops, those laws were for only the Nation of Israel. You perhaps should study the scripture rather than taking your talking points from atheist web sites.

    Varying beliefs about non-essentials does not make people apostate. But we all have to agree on foundational doctrines. Any falling away from foundational doctrines lead to apostasy (which means “falling away”) and eventually heresy. To teach homosexuality as not a sin is apostasy because it goes against the Character of God. This can easily lead to heresy. Roman Catholicism and all Protestant denominations subscribe to the same foundational doctrines because we all read the same Bible. Denominations who start tossing out things because they want to be politically correct are apostate at best and heretical at worst.

Comments are closed.